Decision:Faulks v Independent Planning Commission [2026] NSWLEC 1032 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Faulks v Independent Planning Commission

[2026] NSWLEC 1032

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-01-29|Before: O’Neill

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-01-29

Before

O’Neill

Catchwords

APPEAL — objector appeal against the Independent Planning
Commission’s decision to approve a large-scale solar farm and
associated
infrastructure — the proposed development’s impacts on the scenic

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

APPEAL — objector appeal against the Independent PlanningCommission’s decision to approve a large-scale solar farm andassociatedinfrastructure — the proposed development’s impacts on the scenicquality and landscape character of the surroundingland and the visual amenityof local landowners is acceptable — the use of the site for renewableenergy development is notinconsistent with the Yass Valley Strategy 2036,including its proscription of large-scale development within 5km of the ACT-NSWborder

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Faulks v Independent Planning Commission [2026] NSWLEC 1032

Hearing dates: 1-4 September 2025

Date of orders: 29 January 2026

Decision date: 29 January 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: O’Neill

The orders of the Court are: (1) The Second Respondent is granted leave to amend State Significant Development Application SSD-9261283 to include the Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation for the Wallaroo Solar Farm prepared by JBS&G dated 20 August 2025. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) The amended State Significant Development Application SSD-9261283 for a 100MW solar farm and associated infrastructure is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A. (4) The exhibits, other than Exhibits 1, 21 and A, are returned.

The Second Respondent, by Notice of Motion filed on 20 August 2025 (the Motion), sought to amend the application to include the Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation for the Wallaroo Solar Farm prepared by JBS&G dated 20 August 2025 (PDSI Report) pursuant to s 37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation). The Motion was supported by the Affidavit of Natasha Nadj affirmed and filed on 20 August 2025 and associated Exhibit NN-2 (Exh 1 on the Motion).
Section 4.6(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP) requires a consent authority to have considered a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subs (4) which includes the site. It was uncontroversial that the IPC did not consider such a report in determining the application.
The First Respondent consented to the Motion.
The Applicants objected to the amendment of the application on the following bases:
The Court has no jurisdiction to amend a development application in respect of a development consent that the proponent admits is invalid. The proponent has admitted that the IPC was required to consider a preliminary investigation under s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP. The IPC did not consider a preliminary investigation, despite the requirement to consider the preliminary investigation being a jurisdictional pre-requisite to the IPC’s power to grant consent. These admissions mean that the consent is invalid, and the Court is on notice that the consent is invalid. The Court cannot determine the appeal in circumstances where it knows, or ought to know, that the IPC’s decision to grant consent was beyond power.
The power to amend the application has been exhausted. Under s 37 of the EPA Regulation, an applicant may only apply to the consent authority for an amendment to the development application “at any time before a development application is determined”. The proponent’s development application has already been determined. Unlike other types of appeals, where a development application is effectively deemed to be undetermined while any appeal is before the Court under s 8.13(1) of the EPA Act, this consent remains in effect under that provision. This express temporal limitation on the competence of an applicant to seek an amendment to a development application suggests that this procedure is only available in respect of development applications that are in fact undetermined, or which are deemed to not have effect as a matter of law under s 8.13(1).
Seeking to amend a development application is an unsuitable procedure for attempting to “cure” an invalid consent because, before any appeal is determined, it would be open to an objector to discontinue its appeal, and/or if the Court were to dismiss the appeal and not make an order re-granting the development consent, either course would have the effect of negativing any “curative” effects of the amendment.
This Court cannot usurp the function of the Court in its Class 4 jurisdiction. It would be an abuse of process to invoke the Court’s procedures in its Class 1 jurisdiction for the purpose of trying to remedy a jurisdictional error.
Re-exhibition would be required, but there is no framework to enable it to occur in the context of an appeal under s 8.8 of the EPA Act. This manifests a legislative intention not to allow amendments to development applications as part of appeals under s 8.78. Appeals under s 8.8 are unique, because they concern development consents that have been granted and remain in force. This subjects them to particular constraints that do not apply to other types of appeals.
The Second Respondent submitted, in summary, the following:
The development consent is not invalid, and the proponent has not admitted that it is invalid. A development consent is valid unless and until it is set aside, which has not occurred.
The Court has power to amend the development application. The authorities are clear that a development application appeal (whether commenced by the proponent or by an objector) involves the (re-) determination by the Court of the development application.
If the Motion is allowed, there is no appliable requirement to renotify the amended application with the PDSI attached. The IPC does not suggest renotification is necessary. In any event, this is not a reason to refuse the amendment to the application.
The proponent is not engaged in an abuse of process or an attempt to usurp the Court’s functions in Class 4 of the Court’s jurisdiction. The parties all consented to running the Class 1 appeal first and deferring the Class 4 proceedings. A modest amendment to the application, on a topic that is not raised as a contested issue by either the Applicant or the First Respondent, is well within the powers of the Court when exercising its function of determining the State significant development application.
The Motion was granted for the following reasons:
The development consent is valid as it has not been set aside.
The amendment of the development application in this Class 1 appeal does not usurp the function of the Court in its Class 4 jurisdiction. The amended application has no bearing on the issue raised by the Applicants in the Class 4 proceedings regarding the validity or otherwise of the development consent granted by the IPC.
The power to amend the development application before the Court in the Class 1 appeal has not been exhausted. The Court has power to amend the application under s 8.14(1) of the EPA Act (and s 39(2) of the LEC Act). Under s 8.14(1), the Court has all the functions and discretions which the consent authority whose decision is the subject of the appeal had in respect of the matter the subject of the appeal. The IPC had the power to approve the amendment of the development application under s 38(1) of the EPA Regulation prior to determining the application and the Court can now exercise that power. A development application appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction is a hearing de novo involving the redetermination by the Court of the development application pursuant to s 39(3) of the LEC Act (and The Next Generation Pty Ltd v Independent Planning Commission and Ors [2022] NSWLEC 16 per Robson J at [99]). Section 8.13(1) of the EPA Act deals with the effect of appeals on the operation of consents. There is nothing in the terms of s 8.13 that seeks to vary the nature of an objector appeal in respect of State Significant Development (SSD) to prevent an amendment to the development application during an appeal.
Proposed conditions of consent implementing the recommendations of the PDSI Report are agreed by the Second Respondent and have been added to the (without prejudice) conditions of consent (Exh 28) fulfilling the requirements of s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP.

The Court in the company of the parties and their experts viewed the site from the following locations:
Five properties to the north of the site on the high and low side of Gooromon Ponds Road; the Di Iulio property, the Faulks property, the Cunich property, the McCaffrey property, and the Roso property;
a position on the site close to the north-western corner of the development footprint of the proposal; and
Toft Street Playground to the west of the site, within the ACT.
The five properties visited include the two properties owned by the Applicants in this appeal. A representative from each of the five properties gave evidence summarising their objection to the proposed development from their property. Each representative spoke to their written objections and expressed the view that the proposed development will be a visual intrusion into the scenic qualities of the surrounding rural setting and rejected the proponent’s mitigation measures as insufficient to ameliorate the visual intrusion of the proposed development.
Four objectors gave evidence by audio-visual link during the hearing. Their concerns regarding the proposed development can be summarised as follows:
The proposed development is adjacent to a nature reserve which protects important sensitive environmental values. This area is part of three environmental offset areas established under Commonwealth legislation. There should be a 10m transitional buffer for the nature reserve.
The proposed development exacerbates the risk of fire in the area.
The contamination from the solar panels or batteries may leech into the catchment which drains into the nearby streams.
Agriculture is important in the region and the proposed development will remove agricultural land.
Thousands of residents will be visually impacted by the proposed development, and this will negatively affect the value of their properties.
The site is not in a renewable energy zone. There is no requirement for the proposed development in the strategic plan. The ACT is powered mostly by the Snowy River scheme, so the moral question is why are the interests of the developer being prioritised for development that is not necessary?

The proposed development is intended to generate about 260,000kWH per annum and be capable of providing enough clean, renewable energy for approximately 48,000 NSW and ACT homes (Exh 1). The construction period is 12-18 months and the proposed development will create up to 200 construction jobs and 5 operational jobs (Exh 27 ff 4040 and 4166).
The Second Respondent submitted in their written submission at [15] that the application was amended on 3 May 2024 to reduce the development footprint from 181 ha to 164.45 ha and the operational footprint from 181 ha to 139.19 ha to further reduce visual impacts on receivers and amend the operational PV tracking controls to avoid glare generation and potential glare impacts for receivers. The amendments included a revised landscape plan.
The Second Respondent noted that the Department was satisfied that there was no issue regarding glint and glare from the solar array as the proposal includes a limitation in the number of degrees the solar panels can move at relevant times of the day, and there is no contention raised in the appeal concerning glint and glare.
The Second Respondent submitted that the proposal occupies 139.19 ha, being just over 35% of the site area (T 04.09.25 212:46-47), which does not speak of a proponent trying to maximise and over-include solar panels on a relevant property (T 04.09.25 214:29-30).
The lowest point of the development footprint of the proposal is at 543m ADH, which is the western-most extent, approximately mid-way between the northern and southern extent of the development footprint. The proposal has a vertical difference from the lowest point of the development footprint to the highest point of the development footprint of 56m (T 03.09.25 155.27-29 and 161.5). Following is the height above the lowest point of the development footprint of some of the residences on the properties to the north of the site (Exh 26 ff 2899-2900):
The Faulks property 23m;
The Roso property 24m;
The McCaffrey property 58m; and
The Cunich property 62m.

The Second Respondent objected to the admission of appendices A, B and C (the appendices) to the visual impact experts’ joint report (Exh 3).
The appendices, prepared by Mr Aspinall, consisted of a critique of Mr Moir’s visual assessment and photographs of the site from various vantage points, including photographs marked with the location of the solar panels. Mr Aspinall had referred to the appendices in the body of the joint report.
In seeking to have the appendices admitted into evidence, the Applicant relied on the Affidavit of Michael Mascitti affirmed on 28 July 2025. Mr Mascitti deposed that on 3 April 2025, orders by consent were made by the Court for the visual impact experts to confer and produce a joint report to be filed on 11 July 2025. Mr Aspinall sent the draft joint report including the appendices to Mr Moir on 7 July, however, unbeknownst to Mr Aspinall, Mr Moir did not receive the appendices. Once Mr Aspinall became aware that Mr Moir had not received the appendices, he sent them again to Mr Moir on 9 July. As Mr Moir did not have time to review the appendices, the joint report was filed by the Second Respondent on 11 July without the appendices. Mr Mascitti then wrote to Ms Nadj objecting to the joint report being filed in an incomplete form because he considered that it improperly and unnecessarily excluded material that Mr Aspinall considered when forming and expressing his opinion, and which would be of assistance to the Court in determining the issues in the proceedings.
On 29 July 2025, the parties’ representatives appeared before the Registrar of the Court and the Applicants sought to have the appendices filed in court against the objection of the Second Respondent. The Registrar decided that the material could be sought to be tendered at the hearing (TR134973 p 9).
Ms Nadj wrote to Mr Mascitti on 29 August articulating the Second Respondent’s objection to the material in the appendices, stating that she had previously provided comprehensive reasons for the objection to the material in an email sent on 22 July. Ms Nadj noted in her letter that the Applicants had ample time to have sought leave to rely on an individual expert witness report and this was not done.
I accept the Applicants’ submission that the appendices are not an individual expert report. I accept the Applicants’ submission that the appendices illustrate and inform Mr Aspinall’s expert opinion and that Mr Moir has had this material since 9 July. I am satisfied that any prejudice to the Respondents can be cured by giving the visual impact experts an opportunity to confer regarding the appendices and to produce a supplementary joint report. The Respondents will have an opportunity to cross examine Mr Aspinall regarding the appendices and to articulate their position on the appropriate weight to be given to the appendices during closing submissions.
On 2 September 2025, the appendices were admitted into evidence as Exh C and the visual impact experts were directed to confer regarding Exh C and produce a supplementary joint report. The supplementary joint report was prepared by the experts and admitted as Exh 5.

The proposed development fails all three of the visual amenity principles under 5.1 of the Guideline (Exh 22 f 313), as follows:
The site has not been selected, and the proposed development has not been designed, “to minimise impacts and conflicts, including cumulative impacts”. The proponents’ self-serving criteria for site suitability largely ignored off-site impacts on the local area and community.
The proposed development has not been sited and designed to avoid areas with topographical constraints that would increase the visibility of a development. On the contrary, the topographical features of the site (the site is lower than the majority of the residential receptors and rises as one moves away from them) amplify its visual impact and diminish the potential for effective mitigation measures. The “solar farm [is] in a bowl, where on the lip of the bowl, there happens to be all of the residential receptors” (T 03.09.25 181:25-29).
The proponent has not adopted “strategies to reduce or manage moderate or high visual impacts”. The proposed screen plantings will be largely ineffective. The proponent has not broken up the visual bulk of the solar array. It also has not proposed any mounding or elevated planting to compensate for the effect rising topography.
The Court is required to assess "the likely impacts of the development" under s 4.15(1)(b) of the EPA Act. Although the Court would be assisted by the photographs and montages that depict the visual impact, and opinions of the experts concerning the visual impact, the most accurate evidence of the impact that the proposed development will have on the scenic value, rural character and views is the observations and impressions made by the Court during the site inspection. The Court would defer to those observations to the extent that they give it a different view of the extent of visual impact from, say, the VIA. This is not a case concerned with view loss where the issue turns on the extent to which a proposed development will obstruct a view and the montages provide critical evidence of the extent of view loss. The Court can gain an accurate appreciation of the extent to which the proposed development would blight the views and alter the rural character of the area from the descriptions of the extent of the proposed development of the site, save as to those locations that the Court could not visit owing to time constraints which are depicted in Annexures B, C and D to the visual impact experts’ joint reports.
The visual impact of the proposed development is unacceptable for the reasons that follow:
The proposed development is visible from a large number of residential receivers and public spaces due to its close proximity to the suburbs of Dunlop and McGregor and the dwellings along Gooromon Ponds Road. There are 92 Residential Receptors with a line of sight to the project within 4 km of the project in NSW and around 1990 Private Receptors with a line of sight to the proposed development were identified within 4km of the Project in ACT (VIA Viewshed Map, Exh 26 f 2893).
The topography of the site amplifies the adverse impact of the proposed development on the rural character, scenic value and views of the area.
According to Mr Aspinall, the “imposition of a monolithic mass of dark, reflective panels is visually obtrusive and incongruous to the existing view” (Exh 3 at [49]). The “subject site forms the mid-ground element of an overall, high-value view and the diminution of one element of that view diminishes the whole” (Exh 3 at [50]). The “grid tool” in the Guideline is a “‘blunt’ planning tool” and “there are many other factors that should be considered alongside this” (Exh 3 at [69]).
Each of the properties that the Court visited during the site inspection had been specifically designed and orientated to capture the view that the proposed development will spoil. Each of the objectors who addressed the Court on the properties spoke of the importance of the view to them, which is understandable given the high scenic value of the view enjoyed from their properties.
The Court would not accept Mr Moir’s evidence that only part of the view is impacted by the proposed development for the reasons given by Mr Aspinall (Exh 3 at [109]), “[Mr Moir’s opinions] fail to reflect the value of the view and the magnitude of the visual impact, when assessed within the context of the entirety of the view…. In a not unreasonable comparison, if a nose is removed from a face, it is not the area of the nose alone that is impacted, but the balance and beauty of the entirety of the face. In this instance, the relative obliteration of the midground element of the views from neighbouring properties affects the entirety of the view, not the subject site alone. If the subject site alone is assessed, the visual impact can be described as devastating, since the entirety of the landform [sic] is covered with solar panels. This is indisputable.”
Of a total of 1,990 non-project related ACT dwellings with a line of sight to the proposed development, the VIA considered only 14 residential receptor sites in the ACT, and only four of those (that is, less than 1% of all residences with a line of sight to the project) were the subject of detailed assessment using photomontages. The receptors selected for detailed assessment are not sufficiently representative of residential and public receptors with a line of sight to the proposed development.
Mr Moir’s opinion about the acceptability of the visual impacts is informed by his belief that views of “grazing land” are of “low scenic quality” (Exh 3 at [114](a)). As the Court knows from its site view, that is not an accurate or apt description of the views currently enjoyed from surrounding residences. According to Mr Aspinall, “The key landscape features lie within the subtlety of the gently undulating land and interweaving creeks. Its sensitivity is contained within its openness and lack of dominance within the context of its setting” (Exh 3 at [117](c)). The views are self-evidently high quality. “The proposed development presents a visual anomaly to the existing rural landscape and, with no significant effort to mitigate its visual impact, can be reasonably described as excessive in its magnitude. When observed in elevation, from many of the selected viewing points, the effective visual impact equates to that of a six-storey built form at the perimeter of the site. This is directly as a result of the unbroken nature of the planning of the solar arrays and the rising elevation of the land, relative to the neighbouring properties”: Exh 3 at [117](b). The proposed mitigation is inadequate: “[A]s a result of the rising elevation of the site’s landform, lines of perimeter trees will be inadequate for addressing mitigation measures. From Urbaine’s calculations, these were providing between 15% and 20% of screening effectiveness, which is not sufficient, or ‘acceptable’. Combinations of mounding, separation of panels and extensive landscaping would be required …” (Exh 3 at [117](h)).

The Second Respondent submitted the following regarding Mr Aspinall’s evidence:
Mr Aspinall said that the Urbaine Design Group material (Appendices A, B and C, [Exh C]) was prepared in accordance with the Court’s Policy on the Use of Photomontages and Visualisation Tools for the use of photomontages, as well as The Guideline for landscape character and visual impact assessment – Transport for NSW and Urbaine’s own assessment criteria table based on LEC judgments (Exh 5 at [23]). In cross-examination, Mr Aspinall sought to identify where in his evidence he explained the reasons for concluding that the proposed mitigation was not sufficient (T 03.09.2025 140.48-142.33). In fact, Mr Aspinall has not explained his methodology or reasoning to justify his conclusions and, therefore, his evidence should be approached with caution or rejected outright.
Mr Moir has used a clear methodology and a clear explanation of how the methodology was applied. Mr Aspinall did not apply the methodology of the Guideline and so it is not possible to understand how he arrived at an opinion that’s no more than just his subjective view. Mr Moir’s evidence is more reliable, better supported by methodology and reference to the Guidelines and better indicating the appropriate outcome of visual impact assessment in this case (T 04.09.25 227:6-26).
The Second Respondent's submitted that the number of alleged receptors is theoretical as it is based entirely on a topographical viewshed which takes no account of either existing vegetation or built form. The actual number of residences from which the proposed development could be viewed is unknown (T 04.09.25 212:30-36).
The Second Respondent submitted that contention 1 does not warrant refusal of the application for the following reasons:
The parties’ visual impact experts agreed that the VIA was prepared in accordance with the Guideline and the Technical Supplement. This agreement addresses many of the numerous particulars to contention 1. Further, Mr Aspinall’s criticisms of the VIA based on alleged inaccuracies in baseline data have fallen away as a result of the agreement reached between the experts in Exh 5 and after further consideration of Urbaine’s assessment.
Mr Moir has used a clear methodology, and a clear explanation of how the methodology was applied. Mr Aspinall did not apply the methodology of the Guideline and so it is not possible to understand how he arrived at an opinion that's no more than just his subjective view. Mr Moir's evidence is more reliable, better supported by methodology and reference to the Guidelines and better indicating the appropriate outcome of visual impact assessment in this case (T 04.09.25 227:6-26).
The visual impact of the solar farm will be low and should be regarded by the Court as acceptable. The existing view from all relevant objector viewing locations in the area north of the site is a wide view with many elements across a highly modified landscape. A key element of the view, the Brindabella Range mountains, is unaffected (T 04.09.25 230:25-26). The experts agreed that foreground and distant view elements are unaffected by the proposal.
In the mid-ground, appreciation of the topography of the landscape is unaffected – the natural undulations of the landscape remain visible, and the solar panels will not obscure or change the topography. The mid-ground hills and slopes above the panels will also remain unchanged – the development does not go up and over the rocky knoll or mid-ground hills.
There is existing vegetation that will obscure various portions of the solar panels when viewed from all of the viewpoints (T 04.09.25 231:20-41).
The location of the solar panels is on cleared farmland, which currently presents as a static monotone of light brown/light green paddocks, with regular visual punctuations such as houses, roadways, farm sheds and equipment. Once installed, the proposed development will present as a static monotone of a uniform dark colour on part of the property and the continuation of paddocks and grazing sheep in and around the panels.
From the viewpoints in the north, the solar panels will have the appearance of a narrow band of darkened area, limited in vertical and horizontal extent within the mid-ground view and obscured in places by existing vegetation and also by proposed mitigation planting. It will not have unacceptable impacts on visual amenity.
Based on the VIA and the expert evidence of Mr Moir, the Court should find that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable visual impact.
If, contrary to that submission, the Court finds that the proposed development will have a material or significant visual impact, the Court should nevertheless grant development consent to the application having regard to the many benefits of the proposed development. The Second Respondent invites the Court to weigh up any material or significant visual impacts against the following matters and benefits of the proposed development (which WSF contends clearly outweighs any such visual impacts):

The experts agreed that the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Moir Landscape Architecture (VIA, Exh 26 ff 2866-3013) was prepared in accordance with the Guideline (Exh 3 at [11], [21]-[22], [40]-[41] and [43]-[44]). The experts agreed that the photomontages in the VIA are sufficiently accurate (Exh 5 at [10], T 03.09.25 132:16-26). Mr Moir confirmed that the VIA utilised publicly available GIS topographic and cadastral data as required by the Technical Supplement (Exh 3 at [27]). He considered that the accuracy of the GIS dataset is sufficient to determine the visual magnitude from various viewpoints given the scale of the proposed development and distance of the views (Exh 3 at [29]).
According to Mr Aspinall, the Guideline does not provide sufficient differentiation within the assessment criteria to allow for qualitative valuation of the mid-ground component of the viewshed which is an integral part of the whole view (Exh 5 at [18]). In Mr Moir's opinion, the Guideline provides a structured methodology for assessing the visual impact of a large-scale solar energy project and provides values to the key elements that contribute to the character of a view (Exh 5 at [19]).
The experts agreed that landscape character and landscape values are distinct. The assessment of the visual impacts can be completed without input from the community, and this is consistent with the methodology for visual impact assessment in both versions of the Technical Supplement (Exh 3 at [34]-[37]). According to Mr Moir, values are subjective and unique to the individual, whereas character is objective. Landscape character is an objective assessment of the physical and visual attributes of the land (Exh 3 at 55(b)). Mr Aspinall disagrees. In his view, an individual’s held landscape values are informed by the objectively assessed landscape character and the two often align. Landscape values may be shared amongst many individuals (Exh 3 at [56]).
According to Mr Moir, the Guideline provides a structured methodology for assessment that considers and provides values to the key elements that contribute to the character of a view. The Guideline appropriately addresses the impacts on landscape character through determining the sensitivity of the character of each view, the magnitude of change and the extent of impact on the valued character elements of each view (Exh 5 at [20]).
Mr Moir stated that the more natural the view, according to the Guideline, the higher the sensitivity to change (Exh 5 at [19]). In his opinion, the landscape is not unique and is typical of peri-urban areas surrounding the ACT with the most significant natural element of the landscape character being the distant vegetated ridgelines of the Brindabella Ranges (which will not be obstructed by the proposed development) (Exh 3 at [118(a)]). The proposed development introduces a new character element into the existing visual landscape which is already highly modified and mixed. For this reason, the landscape is less sensitive to change (Exh 3 at [118(b)]).
The experts agreed that the foreground and distant view elements are unaffected by the proposed development. According to Mr Aspinall, the proposed development diminishes the mid-ground element of the view, which diminishes the view as a whole (Exh 3 at [50]). In Mr Aspinall’s opinion, the Guideline does not provide sufficient differentiation within an assessment for a qualitative valuation of the mid-ground component as an integral part of the whole (T 03.09.25 146:15-20). The various elements of a view are read together as a view, whereas the methodology in the Guideline assesses the quantitative impact as a proportion of the view by counting grid squares, not the qualitative impact a project has on the whole outlook (T 03.09.25 148:20-26, 38-45).
Mr Moir noted that the area is not a pristine natural environment, it is a highly modified agricultural landscape; meaning that it has been cleared and used for agricultural purposes, there are elements within the landscape such as housing and the transmission lines, and there is very little that is natural within the middle ground of the view (Exh 3 at [80] and T 03.09.25127:11-15). Mr Aspinall disagreed, in his opinion the modification of the landscape is minimal, and the site has experienced very little landform disturbance and is not noticeable dissimilar to much of the undeveloped, grazing land within the general area (Exh 3 at [81]). Mr Aspinall accepted in cross-examination that the area, including the site, is a highly modified agricultural landscape as it has been cleared for agriculture including grazing paddocks (T 03.09.25 145:4-38).
Mr Aspinall said that view loss relates to the partial obstruction and reduction of the scenic view caused by the imposition of solar panels (Exh 3 at [48]). According to Mr Aspinall, the photomontages prepared by Urbaine Design Group titled Appendix C "Built Form Equivalent" (Exh C) are intended to demonstrate a similar level of visual impact created if an industrial warehouse development was being proposed in the same location (Exh 3 at [48], Exh 5 at [30]). In his opinion, the smaller size of the individual solar panels (when compared to an industrial warehouse structure) does not diminish their capacity to cause the same view loss and visual impact, and the imposition of a monolithic mass of dark, reflective panels is visually obtrusive and incongruous to the existing view (Exh 3 at [48]-[49]). Mr Aspinall accepted in cross examination that Appendix C (Exh C) is not a realistic representation of an industrial warehouse development because it does not include roads, signs, fences, lights and indications of traffic movement (T 03.09.2025 165.28-34). According to Mr Moir, the photomontages prepared by Mr Aspinall in Appendix C are not of a comparable development to the proposal and cannot be tested against anything he has produced (T 03.04.25 168: 29 – 169:5).
Mr Moir is of the opinion that view loss is not relevant in this matter. As the proposed development is distant and follows the existing topography of the landscape, it does not obstruct views from the residences of the objectors. Rather, any change to the view is a result of the introduction of a new character element within the existing view (Exh 3 at [51]-[52]).
Mr Aspinall said that an assessment that includes the transmission lines and other ancillary infrastructure including external security fencing has not been presented (Exh 3 at [16]). Mr Moir disagreed, stating that the transmission lines were considered and are generally associated with short runs between the substation and existing transmission line, citing Photomontage 5 of Appendix D to the VIA (Exh 26 ff 3006-3011). In Mr Moir’s opinion, the fence would not be a significant element within the view across the site due to its materiality, scale and proximity to screen vegetation (Exh 3 at [17]-[18]).
According to Mr Moir, the VIA was prepared in accordance with the methodology in the Guideline and concludes that the magnitude of the proposed development is not excessive (Exh 3 at [116(b)]). The conclusion of the Landscape Character Assessment in the VIA is that the landscape surrounding the proposed development is not highly sensitive and, due to the highly modified nature of the landscape and the absence of key landscape features, is generally of low scenic quality (Exh 3 at [116(c)]). The VIA addresses potential views from nearby residences and public domain including walking trails and nature reserves (Exh 3 at [116(e)] –[116(f)]). Where “moderate” impacts or greater were identified, the photomontages in the VIA show that impacts can be successfully mitigated to an acceptable level according to the definition in the Technical Supplement (Exh 3 at [116(h)]).
Mr Aspinall indicated that in his assessment, he has not applied the methodology in the Guideline, as he was not required to do so. His approach is closer in descriptive manner to the approach of the Court’s planning principle for public domain views in Rose Bay Marina Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council and A**nor [2013] NSWLEC 1046 [44]-[59] (Rose Bay Marina) and Furlong v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 1208 (Furlong) (T 03.04.25 134:5-19).
According to Mr Aspinall, a visible solar array will always create a visual impact, and it is the extent and reasonableness of that impact, with mitigation measures, that determines whether the impact is acceptable (Exh 3 at [63]). The experts disagreed as to whether the proposed perimeter planting is sufficient to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development. According to Mr Aspinall, the measures are not sufficient, and according to Mr Moir, the measures are in keeping with the existing landscape character and is sufficient in the context of the visual impacts identified in the VIA (Exh 3 at [117] and Exh 5 at [13]-[14]).
According to Mr Moir, the proposed perimeter planting is intended to screen the interface between the development footprint and the surrounding paddocks. The solar array will still be visible from most viewpoints. The point of this as a mitigation measure is to provide some relief at the edge of the development footprint and the boundary fence (T 03.09.25 111:6-32). Mr Aspinall referred to a photomontage in Appendix A at page 21 (Exh C) where the solar array is shown in blue and the perimeter planting in red (T 03.09.25 141:4-18). In his opinion, the perimeter planting “touches a very small percentage of the edge, probably around 10 to 12%” (T 03.09.25 141:13-14).
The experts agreed that the visible magnitude of a solar energy development is affected by topography and the relative height between the viewpoint and the proposal. In Mr Moir's opinion, this influence is accommodated for with the grid tool in the Technical Supplement applicable to flat and undulating properties. According to Mr Aspinall, this is a blunt tool (Exh 3 at [69]). All the objectors' properties to the north of the site with a view over the site are higher than the site. According to Mr Moir this elevational relationship compounds the magnitude of the visual impact of the proposal, however, when assessed, the magnitude ratings were considered low. The solar array will be visible, but visibility is different to impact (T 03.09.25 130:2-19 and 131:19-26). According to Mr Aspinall, there is a missing factor within the descriptions of the magnitude assessment, and that is the site is in a bowl, and this topography results in the majority of receptors viewing the site from a higher elevation.
In Mr Aspinall’s opinion, the orientation of the affected properties should also be considered as a significant factor when visual impact is being assessed. The two Applicants have built houses on elevated land above the site, specifically to experience the uninterrupted rural views to the south-west. A combination of their siting of their houses on the hill, and the rising topography of the site, creates a significant area where the solar array is visible. The elevated view also limits any mitigation measures that can be applied effectively, since any landscape, or land mounding, will only be capable of screening small areas of the proposed development (Exh 3 at [77]). Without the installation of strong, landscaping measures for mitigation, the visual outcome of the solar installation will, according to Mr Aspinall, be undeniably negative to the nearby residents (Exh 3 at [78]).

I accept the agreement of the experts that the VIA prepared by Moir Landscape Architecture was prepared in accordance with the Guideline and the Technical Supplement and the photomontages in the VIA are sufficiently accurate.
I accept Mr Moir’s distinction that values are subjective and may even be unique to the individual, whereas character is objective. I accept that landscape character is an objective assessment of the physical and visual attributes of the land. It is appropriate to assess the visual impact of the proposed development on views from properties in the viewshed in an objective manner (s 4.15(1)(b) and (c) of the EPA Act). I accept the Second Respondent’s submission that the methodology for assessing visual impact in the Guideline is a tool, to be used to assess visual impact, so that an objective assessment on the visual impact of a project on a receptor can be made. I accept the Applicants’ submission that the Guideline is intended to provide for consistency in the preparation of applications and is not indicative of the acceptability or otherwise of a proposal.
I accept and prefer Mr Moir's opinion that the Guideline provides a structured and comprehensive methodology for assessing the visual impact of a large-scale solar energy project. The methodology does focus on determining the visual magnitude of the development footprint within the viewshed as a means of determining the overall visual impact on viewpoints, which is criticised by Mr Aspinall as only assessing the quantitative impacts as a proportion of the view by counting grid squares. I accept Mr Moir’s evidence that the Guideline addresses the impacts on landscape character through determining the sensitivity of the character of each view, the magnitude of change and the extent of impact on the valued character elements of each view. In this way, the visual impact assessment is informed by the landscape character assessment, an objective assessment of the physical and visual attributes of the land, which does contribute a qualitative valuation to the assessment of the visual impact of a project.
I accept Mr Moir's evidence that the site is not a pristine natural environment, but a highly modified agricultural landscape. I accept the agreement of the experts that the mid-ground of the view from a number of vantage points towards the site is of agricultural land substantially cleared for grazing and cropping, with introduced elements such as the transmission lines, buildings, sheds and so on. The most dramatic element and a key aspect of the overall view is the distant vegetated Brindabella Ranges, which form the backdrop of the outlook from the locations from which the site was viewed including the objectors’ properties. I accept the agreement of the experts that only the mid-ground of the view from the properties to the north of the site is affected by the introduction of the solar array (and other elements of the proposed development) and the foreground and distant view elements are unaffected.
The Guideline (including the Technical Supplement) requires a visual impact assessment of the visual sensitivity of the existing view, an assessment of the visual magnitude of the development footprint as a proportion of the viewshed from a receptor, an assessment of the visual impact of the proposal based on a matrix that combines visual sensitivity with visual magnitude and consideration of mitigation measures. The VIA has assessed the significance of the visual impact of the proposed development from the various viewpoints in the vicinity of the site and whether those impacts are successfully managed, using the detailed methodology in the Guideline . I am satisfied that Mr Moir’s evidence is more reliable as it is supported by the methodologies for landscape character assessment and visual impact assessment of large-scale solar energy projects in the Guideline (Exh 22 ff 352-376).
I understand that the objectors, including the Applicants, consider that the introduction of the solar array into the mid-ground component of their view will have an unacceptable impact on the whole outlook from their properties. Their objection to looking at the visible portion of the solar array on a part of the nearby farm is underpinned by an assumption that a solar array within a viewscape is inherently undesirable. The Technical Supplement (updated) to the Guideline states (Exh 22 f 408):

The transmission lines are shown in Photomontage 5 of Appendix D to the VIA (Exh 26 ff 3007-3011) as well as in other montages. I agree with Mr Moir that the 1.8m high mesh fence around the perimeter of the development footprint will not be a significant element within the viewscape from the various viewpoints around the site due to its materiality, scale and proximity to the proposed perimeter planting (Exh 26 f 3018).
I accept the Second Respondent's submission that the number of alleged receptors is theoretical as it is based entirely on a topographical viewshed which takes no account of either existing vegetation or built form and the actual number of residences from which the proposed development could be viewed is unknown. A total of 1999 dwellings outside of the site were identified within 4km of the site within NSW and ACT and due to the high number of residences, representative receptors were used to gauge the potential impact on clusters of dwellings (Exh 26 ff 2879 and 2896). Using clusters for the ACT suburbs with a representative receptor location for the viewpoint selection process is acceptable, because the Reverse Viewshed Map is a preliminary assessment tool only, “to identify areas from which the project could be visible” (Exh 22 f 434); it disregards elements that may in fact obstruct a view towards the development footprint; and it is reasonable to identify a representative receptor given the suburban density of the development across the border and distance from the site. For this reason, not all of the 1999 receptors identified will have a view of the development footprint.
I accept Mr Moir’s evidence that the issue is not view loss, as the proposed development does not obstruct views, but introduces a new element into the view and onto the existing topography of the site. I accept Mr Moir’s evidence and the submissions of the Second Respondent that the Mr Aspinall’s comparison of the proposed development with an industrial warehouse development is not realistic, because to represent the proposed development in this way requires the view of the development footprint to be foreshortened and presented as an elevation of a three-dimensional mass obstructing the topography behind. The solar array does not obstruct the view in this way; the solar array blankets the existing topography of the site in the location of the development footprint. I have not had regard to the photomontages prepared by Urbaine Design Group titled "Appendix C Built Form Equivalent" (Exh C) depicting an industrial warehouse development in the same location as the proposed development as they do not provide a useful or accurate basis for the assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development. Mr Aspinall’s adoption of, or reference to, the methodology of the planning proposal in Rose Bay Marina is not strictly appropriate because this proposal does not obstruct a view.
Large-scale solar energy projects require large portions of contiguous land (Exh 22 f 315), so it is impractical to suggest that the solar array should be interrupted by large soil moundings or elevated planting. The suggested mitigation measures in the Guideline do not include large soil moundings or elevated planting (Exh 22 f 333).
An appreciation of the topography of the landscape is unaffected by the proposed development as the natural undulations of the landscape remain visible, and the mid-ground hills and slopes above the solar array remains unchanged as the development footprint does not go up and over the rocky knoll or mid-ground hills. The development footprint has been located to avoid areas with topographical constraints, as it is confined to an elevational range of 56m. This aids in confining the height of the development footprint, the vertical field of view within the viewscape, from a number of the receptors to a narrow horizontal band across the mid-ground of the view, with the hills behind the development footprint unaffected (see Mr Aspinall’s viewpoints 02, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11 and 12 of Exh C for example).
I do not accept the Applicants’ submission that the site is a bowl with the vast majority of the residential receptors on the lip of the bowl. The site is lower than some of the residential receptors, such as the Cunich and MacCaffrey residences to the north of the site which are both just above the highest point of the development footprint. Those receptors were identified in the VIA as requiring a detailed assessment with a 2-degree vertical field of view and the horizontal field of view 32 and 31 degrees respectively, and moderate viewpoint sensitivity and scenic quality (Exh 26 f 2900). The VIA states in relation to the Cunich residence, “[The] existing vegetation in midground will likely fragment the views towards the southwest”, and in relation the MacCaffrey residence, “[The] existing windbreak plantations around the receptor will likely fragment the views toward the southwest”. Both detailed assessments rated the visual impact as low (Exh 26 f 2950 and f 2948 and Exh 22 f 428).
The site is not lower than the Applicants’ residences; both the Roso and Faulks residences are midway between the lowest and highest points of the development footprint, with a 1-degree vertical field of view and the horizontal field of view 45 and 38 degrees respectively (Exh 26 ff 2897-2900). The volume of the visual magnitude was sufficiently low for both that a detailed assessment was not required for either receptor. As both residences are more than 1km away from the nearest panel, the potential for vegetation to effectively screen at least part of the horizontal extent of the development footprint is reasonable. There is also the option of “at-receiver mitigation” for these properties (Exh 22 ff 431 and 375-376).
According to the Guideline, mitigation is considered for high and moderate visual impacts only. No mitigation is required for low and very low visual impacts (Exh 22 f 429). Even when mitigation is required, there is no expectation that mitigation should eliminate the view of the development entirely, but it should reduce the impact to an acceptable level (Exh 22 f 374). I am satisfied that the proposed perimeter planting, coupled with the existing vegetation in the landscape, will adequately soften the view of the solar array from the north and east of the site. The perimeter planting will not entirely obstruct views of the solar array from any location from which the solar array will be visible.
Having viewed the site from a number of locations in the vicinity of the site (see [12]) and with the assistance of the photomontages in the VIA and Exh C (Appendices A and B), I accept the conclusion of the VIA that the visual impact of the proposed development on the scenic quality of the surrounding land and the visual amenity of local landowners is acceptable. From the residential receptors to the north, the solar array will have the appearance of a band of darkened area, limited in its vertical and horizontal extent within the mid-ground view, and obscured in places by existing vegetation and mitigation perimeter planting (Exh 26 f 3018 and Condition B11).

The Applicants submitted that notwithstanding that the YV Settlement Strategy is not an environmental planning instrument for the purpose of s 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act, the YV Settlement Strategy can relevantly inform the Court consideration of “the likely impacts of the development” (s 4.15(1)(b)), “the suitability of the site for the development” (s 4.15(1)(c)) and “the public interest”: s 4.15(1)(e). The YV Settlement Strategy has also been referred to in submissions and arises for consideration in that context. Further, under the SEARs, the EIS was required to identify “the likely impacts of the development on the environment, focusing on… the likely impacts of all stages of the development, including any cumulative impacts on the site and existing, approved or proposed developments in the region (including Ginninderry (Parkwood) Residential Area) and impacts on the site and any road upgrades, taking into consideration any relevant legislation, environmental planning instruments, guidelines, policies, plans and industry codes of practice”.
The YV Settlement Strategy was not adequately considered in the EIS and the proposed development is inconsistent with the YV Settlement Strategy for the following reasons:
The site is located wholly within the 5km buffer: the YV Settlement Strategy recommends that Council “limit intensive urban residential and speculative development within 5km of Yass Valley LGA from the ACT to protect the rural landscape approach into the ACT, the unique environmental reserve, significant biodiversity and strengthen the connective of nature reserves and its biodiversity value”.
Although the expression “speculative development” is not defined in the YV Settlement Strategy, the Court would be satisfied that the proposed development is “speculative development” for the purpose of the YV Settlement Strategy because it is a type of development from which it would be necessary “to protect the rural landscape approach into the ACT, the unique environmental reserve, significant biodiversity and strengthen the connective of nature reserves and its biodiversity value”. Accordingly, a purposive construction suggests that development for the purpose of a solar electricity generation properly falls within the referent of this term.
Section 9 of the YV Settlement Strategy contains the principles that guide the recommendations in Part 10 and relevantly include:

The planning experts agreed that the YV Settlement Strategy is primarily focused on accommodating future population growth and identifying where it should be located.
The planning experts agreed that the contention cites the wrong area in the YV Settlement Strategy. The contention refers to the Peri-urban area North Eastern Yass Valley – ACT border, whereas the site is within the Peri-urban area Western Yass Valley – ACT border. The reference to Peri-urban area Wallaroo-Spring Range in the title of Table 29 is an anomaly as this reference is not used anywhere else, but nonetheless pages 87-89 are relevant (Exh 2, p 6).
According to Mr Brown, the YV Settlement Strategy's overall conclusions and summary recommendations seeks to apply the 5km buffer zone in order to maintain rural character and to stop urban sprawl (T 02.09.25 45.48-50). In his opinion, the YV Settlement Strategy is not only focused on residential development, but it also refers to speculative development and, in the context of the YV Settlement Strategy, speculative development is something that is risky or not common in the area, something you would not expect to be approved. In his view, renewable energy projects fit within the character of speculative development. The YV Settlement Strategy deals with maintaining separation between the settlements, maintaining rural character, and maintaining a buffer zone to the ACT border. The YV Strategy effectively restricts renewable energy developments from being constructed within the 5km buffer zone (T 02.09.25 46.1-12). The Council has exhibited a clear intention that the buffer zone should be treated differently from other areas in the YV LGA due to its sensitivity in terms of its rural character and the concern that development which would detract from that character would add to urban sprawl visually. The character of the proposed development is not rural in nature, it is highly visible, constructed of glass and metal, and gives an appearance which is not consistent with a rural character (T 02.09.25 46.14-23).
According to Mr McDonald, the YV Settlement Strategy focuses on existing residential areas, towns and settlements to locate future population growth. The YV Strategy identifies that the main constraint for accommodating future population growth within the LGA is water supply and the need to augment that water supply. The YV Strategy divides the LGA into precincts and the site is within the Western Yass Valley peri-urban area. The YV Strategy identifies ‘settlement specific recommendations’ for each locality, and in Mr McDonald’s opinion the proposed development is consistent with those recommendations. Land immediately adjacent to the border should be maintained as productive rural land and high-quality natural environment. The proposed development is consistent with this recommendation because the agricultural use is intended to be continued concurrently with the proposed development. The agricultural productivity is only classified as moderate to low moderate. The site is not identified as having any particular environmental value. The proposed development is not a conflicting land use, as it will not cause disruption to neighbours (other than the visual impact issue raised). The proposal will effectively quarantine the part of the site on which the footprint is located for intensive residential development, which is to be avoided in this area. The site is not located near an existing settlement. The proposed development protects the main vehicular approach to the ACT, as it does not cause any offence when the site is viewed from the Barton Highway.
Mr McDonald noted that, due to their very nature as large scale solar energy development, solar farms require relatively large areas of land. For this reason, solar farms are mostly located on rural land, separated from established urban settlements (Exh 2 [51]).

I accept the Applicants’ submission that the YV Settlement Strategy is a relevant consideration in the determination of the appeal (Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council (2004) 136 LGERA 254 at [90]).
I prefer Mr McDonald’s evidence that to the extent that the YV Settlement Strategy is relevant, and the proposed development is broadly consistent with the YV Settlement Strategy.
I accept and agree with the planning experts’ evidence and the Second Respondent’s submissions that the YV Settlement Strategy is primarily focused on accommodating future population growth and identifying where new residential development should be located. The YV Settlement Strategy refers extensively to the “sustained population growth” in the YV LGA, and to “the housing market”, “the supply of residential land” and so on. The YV Settlement Strategy includes chapters titled “Regional Planning Context”, “Population Projections”, and “Hierarchy of Existing Settlements”. I agree with the Second Respondent’s submission that headings, phrases and statements of that sort are replete throughout the introduction and the methodology and through the description of the planning context (T 04.09.25 216:11-12). The “Summary of Recommendations” is focused on accommodating population growth within and around existing settlements. The YV Settlement Strategy does not address renewable energy projects.
I accept the planning experts agreement that the contention cites the wrong area in the YV Settlement Strategy, the North Eastern Yass Valley – ACT border, whereas the site is within the Peri-urban area Western Yass Valley – ACT border in Tables 28 and 29, (also referred to as the Peri-urban area Wallaroo-Spring Range in Table 29). I accept the Second Respondent’s submission that the contention was drafted and advanced on the assumption that the recommended outcomes for the Peri-urban area made specific reference to the 5km buffer zone, whereas there is no specific reference to the 5km buffer zone in the recommendations of the Peri-urban area containing the site.

The Regional Plan includes, under Direction 6 (Exh 23 f 70), “Position the region as a hub of renewable energy excellence” and at Action 6.3, “Encourage the co-location of renewable energy projects to maximise infrastructure, including corridors with access to the electricity network”.
The Applicants submitted that the proposed development does not involve the co-location of renewable energy projects within the meaning of the Regional Plan (T 03.09.25 180:22-23). According to Mr Brown, the site is not near existing solar generating facilities (Exh 2 at [24]). The closest solar power generation is the Springdale Solar Farm 17km away, approved but not yet constructed, which is beyond the closest wind turbine farm. He interpreted co-location as meaning one solar farm near another solar farm (T 02.09.25 58:26-28, 39-42).
The First Respondent submitted that the site has access to substantial transmission lines, making it an attractive location for a large-scale solar energy development. The Second Respondent submitted that one of the real aspects of the suitability of the site for the proposed development is its location adjacent to the transmission lines, which will have obvious benefits in terms of conveying the solar farm generated electricity into the grid (T 04.09.25 222:4-6).
The Applicants submitted that the transmission lines are linear and there are lots of opportunities to co-locate a solar generating facility along the transmission line, other than the site (referring to the “Regional setting” diagram in the EIS indicating the existing transmission lines, Exh 26 f 2421).
The Second Respondent submitted that Action 6.3 is encouraging the co-location of renewable energy project to maximise infrastructure, including corridors with access to the electricity network. Co-location includes and envisages solar farms being placed near appropriate electricity network infrastructure, or corridors, to maximise infrastructure. The natural meaning of the reference to co-location is co-locating renewable energy projects with other items of renewable energy or electricity infrastructure, including access to the electricity network. It is not restricted to a notion of putting one solar farm close to another solar farm. It is directed to the obvious utility and desirability of having renewable energy projects close to somewhere where they can feed into the grid, where they can provide a real and efficient advantage and benefit to the existing infrastructure. Action 6.3 is complied with and promoted by the proposed development because the proposed development is in close proximity to a very substantial electricity network corridor (T 04.09.25 221:9-45).
I accept and prefer the Second Respondent’s submissions on the meaning of co-location of renewable energy projects under Action 6.3 in the Regional Plan. I accept that the site is attractive to the proponent for the proposed development because it is traversed by the transmission lines, which is consistent with the notion of a corridor with access to the electricity network in the Regional Plan.

Faulks v Independent Planning Commission

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Catchwords

Judgment

JUDGMENT

The application is amended

Site view during the afternoon of 1 September 2025 and objector evidence

The determination of the IPC

The proposed development

Planning Agreement between the proponent and the Council

Permissibility

Planning framework

The Southeast and Tablelands Regional Plan 2036

The Large-Scale Solar Energy Guideline (August 2022)

The Yass Valley Settlement Strategy 2036 August 2019

The Yass Valley Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Council’s Renewable Energy Development Projects Policy

Expert evidence

The appendices to the joint report of the visual impact experts admitted into evidence as Exhibit C

Contention 1 – significant adverse impacts on scenic quality, landscape character and visual amenity

Applicant’s submissions

Second Respondent’s submissions

Visual impact experts’ evidence

Findings

Contention 2 – inconsistency with Yass Valley Settlement Strategy 2036 (August 2019)

Applicants’ submissions

Second Respondent’s’ submissions

Planning experts’ evidence

Findings

The Yass Valley Settlement Strategy 2036 articulates the Council’s strategic policy for future residential development

The proposed development is not speculative development

The site is not important agricultural land

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the Yass Valley Settlement Strategy 2036

The co-location of renewable energy projects under the South East and Tablelands Regional Plan 2036

The Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Council’s Renewable Energy Development Project Policy

The site is suitable for the proposed development

The proposed development is in the broader public interest

S O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (3)